Mullahs who actually run the Iranian regime of terror must be decidedly and perversely amused by some Western observers’ comments concerning recent elections. Anyone who thinks that a truly uncorrupted democratic poll took place in the 85 percent voter turnout is self-delusional. Would anyone have any more confidence in the “victory” of Ahmadinejad, in a near 63 percent landslide, if Jimmy Carter had been there as an election monitor? He provided this service in 2006 for the Palestinian elections and Hamas, and later for the election of the communist dictator Daniel Ortega in Nicaragua. As much as these earlier results were a setback for political freedom, at least there was the pretense of an audit by a purportedly independent observer. Given the Carter history with Iran, I guess the clerics thought it best to do the “monitoring” themselves to protect the revolutionary republic.
Now, in regard to Western comments on Iranian elections, Ian Black of the Guardian speculated before the results were known that a large voter turnout would be a threat to the incumbent, the irrational, bigoted puppet of supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and the rest of mullah central. In a speculative analysis about the impact of the candidacy of the main challenger, Mir Hossein Mousavi, Black suggested that Iranian policies might change if he were elected. The Ayatollah, appearing on television as the earliest voter simply stated, “People should not pay attention to rumors.” That is a code for, “I call the shots.”
Back in the USA there was opinion similar to that of Mr. Black’s. National Public Radio, Los Angeles Times and other outlets made similarly excited comments about the possibility of “change” in Iran. But no one was clearer on the impact he personally was having on the Iranian political climate than Barack Obama himself, as quoted in a New York Times blog:
“We are excited to see what appears to be a robust debate taking place in Iran. And obviously, after the speech that I made in Cairo, we tried to send a clear message that we think there is the possibility of change. And ultimately, the election is for the Iranians to decide, but just as has been true in Lebanon, what can be true in Iran as well is that you’re seeing people looking at new possibilities. And whoever ends up winning the election in Iran, the fact that there’s been a robust debate hopefully will help advance our ability to engage them in new ways.”
That may be code for, “I don’t know what’s going on in Iran but if things turn out well, I’ll take credit for it. If things don’t turn out so well, at least it is what the Iranians wanted.”
As for the Iranian “street” it appears as though events are a little more of a “practical” nature. Amid the unconfirmed reports of protests shut down by 200,000 police, buses set on fire, former President Rafsanjani’s resignation as head of the Expediency Council in protest of voter fraud, and that candidate Mousavi may have been arrested, we heard from recently reelected President Ahmadinejad. He has called for Iranians to respect the results and has excoriated the foreign media coverage for harming the Iranian people. Sagely observing from afar, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said she hopes the results reflect the “genuine will and desire of the Iranian people”.
I’m sure that some Iranians got what they “willed” and “desired” but they are not the ones referred to in the collectivist assumptions of Western commentators. The terror regime has reasserted its authority to control events and people, and has repudiated overtures by Western egotists who rely on “hope” to “…advance (our) ability to engage them in new ways.”
©Copyright 2009 Edward Podritske